04/04: The Call of Cthulu
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
H. P. Lovecraft (1890-1937), an American writer of weird fiction for the pulp magazines of the 1920s and 30s, created a body of work that has the touch of genius. Himself a materialist and atheist, he believed that modern readers could no longer be touched by traditional ghost stories. Therefore, he created stories that were given enough "scientific" language and explanation to aid the reader in the suspension of disbelief, in which the monsters were alien to earth, some even alien to our dimensional universe. These monsters were fit into a mythos, a cosmic story of great power.
The being that seems to have the greatest hold on the imagination of readers, and other writers who added stories set within the Lovcraftian mythology, is Cthulu. Cthulu is a sort of water elemental, living partly in our universe, while perhaps existing simultanously in other dimensions beyond our own. At the present time Cthulu is imprisoned within the sunken city of R'lyeh beneath the sea where he lies dreaming. His dreams can touch certain of the "weak minded" of the human race, who create a cult to worship and free their "god." When the stars reach proper alignment, Cthulu will rise again, ending humanity and reality as we know it.
Lovecraft's writing was rescued from oblivion by two friends, August Derleth and Donald Wandrei, who founded Arkham House to publish Lovecraft's work, and that of other writers of weird fiction.
H. P. Lovecraft biography.
List of Lovecraft's fiction.
Lovecraft also wrote a respected critical history of weird fiction, Supernatural Horror in Literature
The Cthulu Myth in song. While it is a parody of another song, it presents a good summary of Lovecraft's most famous creation.
Metallica: The Call of Cthulu.
Cradle of Filth: Cthulu Dawn
Septic Flesh: Lovecraft's Death
The being that seems to have the greatest hold on the imagination of readers, and other writers who added stories set within the Lovcraftian mythology, is Cthulu. Cthulu is a sort of water elemental, living partly in our universe, while perhaps existing simultanously in other dimensions beyond our own. At the present time Cthulu is imprisoned within the sunken city of R'lyeh beneath the sea where he lies dreaming. His dreams can touch certain of the "weak minded" of the human race, who create a cult to worship and free their "god." When the stars reach proper alignment, Cthulu will rise again, ending humanity and reality as we know it.
Lovecraft's writing was rescued from oblivion by two friends, August Derleth and Donald Wandrei, who founded Arkham House to publish Lovecraft's work, and that of other writers of weird fiction.
H. P. Lovecraft biography.
List of Lovecraft's fiction.
Lovecraft also wrote a respected critical history of weird fiction, Supernatural Horror in Literature
The Cthulu Myth in song. While it is a parody of another song, it presents a good summary of Lovecraft's most famous creation.
Metallica: The Call of Cthulu.
Cradle of Filth: Cthulu Dawn
Septic Flesh: Lovecraft's Death
It just happened in Iowa. Story here.
Out of 69 pages of pablum, here's the heart of the matter:
“[E]qual protection can only be defined by the standards of each generation.” (p. 16)
“The point in time when the standard of equal protection finally takes a new form is a product of the conviction of one, or many, individuals that a particular grouping results in inequality and the ability of the judicial system to perform its constitutional role free from the influences that tend to make society’s understanding of equal protection resistant to change.” (pp. 16-17)
Got that?
UPDATE: Allan Carlson nails it here.
UPDATE: Eugene Volokh discusses the slippery slope here.
Out of 69 pages of pablum, here's the heart of the matter:
“[E]qual protection can only be defined by the standards of each generation.” (p. 16)
“The point in time when the standard of equal protection finally takes a new form is a product of the conviction of one, or many, individuals that a particular grouping results in inequality and the ability of the judicial system to perform its constitutional role free from the influences that tend to make society’s understanding of equal protection resistant to change.” (pp. 16-17)
Got that?
UPDATE: Allan Carlson nails it here.
UPDATE: Eugene Volokh discusses the slippery slope here.
I have not been paying close attention to the G-20 summit, but that doesn't really matter. In fact, skimming can sometimes be a great advantage in these affairs. Nothing that transpired at this most recent meeting of global leaders is likely to have any more impact on the world than the latest episode of Dancing with the Stars. So, no harm in covering the event ET style.
Success?
The pictures are good. The camera loves our President. Michelle, evidently, is the new Jackie. They both exude confidence and style. Not since Reagan has an American president so graciously inhabited the role of leading man. At a glance, our tall, dark, and handsome president plays the part of Philosopher-King with great skill.
Gut Instinct: I like this guy (still). Seriously. I think he is smart and stylish, and, overall, at least in terms of symbolism, I think he did us proud on this trip (at least in the superficial sense that most people in the world now associate America with a cool and charismatic person of great charm and bearing).
On the other hand, there are some things I don't like. Some things that he has done over the past few months that worry me.
Little Things:
It bothers me that he gave the Queen of England an iPod made in China filled with his speeches and other frivolous material. Is he trying to be disrespectful--or does he just not know the difference?
He is cool and confident--but sometimes he is too cool and overbearing. In that vein, I am uneasy when he makes fun of Nancy Reagan, Jessica Simpson, or the Special Olympics.
For the Record: the "Special Olympics" comment was unfortunate and, worse, "unpresidential," but it would be hypocritical to get too exercised over a cruel joke. Perhaps it is a generational thing--but my guess is that most readers my age have engaged in similarly tasteless humor. Of course, now that I think about it, I have not tossed around Special Olympics as a "goof" for at least twenty-five years. But, still, give the guy a break. And, please, conservative talkers, enough with the sanctimonious condemnations.
But the tendency to say something cruel for a laugh speaks to a certain cold-bloodedness. The pattern speaks to a certain harshness. Frankly, it belies a certain lack of empathy (and to say it publicly speaks to his sense of invincibility--which is also troublesome). It all bothers me a bit. Of course, Ronald Reagan's purported inability to be an engaged father to his children bothers me to this day. Martin Luther King's infidelity makes me wince. I like my heroes flawlesss--but, alas, they are all human. And not every imperfection necessarily corresponds to a tragic malformation of character.
Perhaps more substantially, I am annoyed by the President's tendency to conflate our economic problems for political expediency. I know this Ivy Leaguer understands that the recession, the banking crisis, and our long-term structurally unsustainable national debt are three distinct obstacles posing extremely divergent threats to our existence. But he happily fuses them together regularly to beat up on opponents and rally support among the less discerning.
That bothers me.
And, it goes without saying, there is the BIG THING:
It worries me that this President favors a complete restructuring of American political culture in the mold of a modern European welfare state. That bothers me.
But other than those kinds of quibbles, I still like him.
Success?
The pictures are good. The camera loves our President. Michelle, evidently, is the new Jackie. They both exude confidence and style. Not since Reagan has an American president so graciously inhabited the role of leading man. At a glance, our tall, dark, and handsome president plays the part of Philosopher-King with great skill.
Gut Instinct: I like this guy (still). Seriously. I think he is smart and stylish, and, overall, at least in terms of symbolism, I think he did us proud on this trip (at least in the superficial sense that most people in the world now associate America with a cool and charismatic person of great charm and bearing).
On the other hand, there are some things I don't like. Some things that he has done over the past few months that worry me.
Little Things:
It bothers me that he gave the Queen of England an iPod made in China filled with his speeches and other frivolous material. Is he trying to be disrespectful--or does he just not know the difference?
He is cool and confident--but sometimes he is too cool and overbearing. In that vein, I am uneasy when he makes fun of Nancy Reagan, Jessica Simpson, or the Special Olympics.
For the Record: the "Special Olympics" comment was unfortunate and, worse, "unpresidential," but it would be hypocritical to get too exercised over a cruel joke. Perhaps it is a generational thing--but my guess is that most readers my age have engaged in similarly tasteless humor. Of course, now that I think about it, I have not tossed around Special Olympics as a "goof" for at least twenty-five years. But, still, give the guy a break. And, please, conservative talkers, enough with the sanctimonious condemnations.
But the tendency to say something cruel for a laugh speaks to a certain cold-bloodedness. The pattern speaks to a certain harshness. Frankly, it belies a certain lack of empathy (and to say it publicly speaks to his sense of invincibility--which is also troublesome). It all bothers me a bit. Of course, Ronald Reagan's purported inability to be an engaged father to his children bothers me to this day. Martin Luther King's infidelity makes me wince. I like my heroes flawlesss--but, alas, they are all human. And not every imperfection necessarily corresponds to a tragic malformation of character.
Perhaps more substantially, I am annoyed by the President's tendency to conflate our economic problems for political expediency. I know this Ivy Leaguer understands that the recession, the banking crisis, and our long-term structurally unsustainable national debt are three distinct obstacles posing extremely divergent threats to our existence. But he happily fuses them together regularly to beat up on opponents and rally support among the less discerning.
That bothers me.
And, it goes without saying, there is the BIG THING:
It worries me that this President favors a complete restructuring of American political culture in the mold of a modern European welfare state. That bothers me.
But other than those kinds of quibbles, I still like him.
02/04: John Calvin Still Rocks
Category: American Christianity
Posted by: an okie gardener
TIME magazine lists the new Calvinism as #3 of the 10 ideas rocking the world right now.
In honor of the 500th anniversary of Calvin's birth, my seminary alma mater has resources online for reading through The Institutes of the Christian Religion in 2009. The Institutes are the masterwork of Calvin.
In honor of the 500th anniversary of Calvin's birth, my seminary alma mater has resources online for reading through The Institutes of the Christian Religion in 2009. The Institutes are the masterwork of Calvin.
One of the ironies expressed by Reinhold Niebuhr in his classic The Irony of American History was that there was a certain similarity between Western liberal ideology and Communist ideology. Both believed that, given the right conditions and methods, mankind can be controlled by an elite class for the betterment of all.
Writing in the midst of the Cold War, Niebuhr made a very clear distinction between the two ideologies. The methods of the communists he viewed as nefarious, while he believed that the potential excesses of liberal ideology had been tempered by practicality born of experience.
According to Niebuhr, one of the characteristics of irony is that it is generally unnoticed. It results from a sort of double-think. In the case of the example above, the greatest irony is that the aspects of Communism which were most decried by the West had their basis in the West’s own ideology, a fact not noted by most critics of Communism.
In modern American politics, there is just as big of an ironic disconnect between Republican/conservative ideology in foreign and domestic affairs.
As a general rule of principle, Republicans distrust the ability of government to efficiently improve the lives of its citizens. Reduce taxes, cut off handouts, let individuals in the market decide what's best: these are the rallying cries of most conservative Republicans. This is in opposition to the ideology of modern liberal Democrats, who view a government of enlightened leaders as capable of improving the lives of their fellow countrymen through the application of sagacious policies.
In foreign policy, however, the basic ideology of the Bush administration was nearly identical to those aspects of Democratic domestic policy which were most roundly condemned by conservatives. In part, the invasion of Iraq was driven by the belief that the application of sagacious policies by an elite (Americans, in this case) would improve the lives of Iraqis. [Yes, of course, there were other reasons for the invasion. But the reasons given by the administration changed so often I figure one is as good as the other.]
Republicans seem just as inclined as Democrats to carry out intrusive policies designed for the betterment of the less fortunate. The main difference seems to be that Democrats focus these policies on (or force these policies on, depending on your view) American citizens, whereas Republicans give Americans the benefit of the doubt in solving their own problems and instead focus/force policies on an international level.
I don’t know if this is due to a sense of American exceptionalism, a compulsion to spread democracy as quickly as possible, or something else. Importantly, I’m not even saying this is necessarily a bad thing.
It’s just ironic.
[note: I know this idea isn’t original to me. Many foreign policy conservatives have distanced themselves from Bush’s actions, labeling him and his team as neo-conservative, neo-Wilsonian, etc. – anything but “conservative.” They’ve obviously recognized the irony.]
Writing in the midst of the Cold War, Niebuhr made a very clear distinction between the two ideologies. The methods of the communists he viewed as nefarious, while he believed that the potential excesses of liberal ideology had been tempered by practicality born of experience.
According to Niebuhr, one of the characteristics of irony is that it is generally unnoticed. It results from a sort of double-think. In the case of the example above, the greatest irony is that the aspects of Communism which were most decried by the West had their basis in the West’s own ideology, a fact not noted by most critics of Communism.
In modern American politics, there is just as big of an ironic disconnect between Republican/conservative ideology in foreign and domestic affairs.
As a general rule of principle, Republicans distrust the ability of government to efficiently improve the lives of its citizens. Reduce taxes, cut off handouts, let individuals in the market decide what's best: these are the rallying cries of most conservative Republicans. This is in opposition to the ideology of modern liberal Democrats, who view a government of enlightened leaders as capable of improving the lives of their fellow countrymen through the application of sagacious policies.
In foreign policy, however, the basic ideology of the Bush administration was nearly identical to those aspects of Democratic domestic policy which were most roundly condemned by conservatives. In part, the invasion of Iraq was driven by the belief that the application of sagacious policies by an elite (Americans, in this case) would improve the lives of Iraqis. [Yes, of course, there were other reasons for the invasion. But the reasons given by the administration changed so often I figure one is as good as the other.]
Republicans seem just as inclined as Democrats to carry out intrusive policies designed for the betterment of the less fortunate. The main difference seems to be that Democrats focus these policies on (or force these policies on, depending on your view) American citizens, whereas Republicans give Americans the benefit of the doubt in solving their own problems and instead focus/force policies on an international level.
I don’t know if this is due to a sense of American exceptionalism, a compulsion to spread democracy as quickly as possible, or something else. Importantly, I’m not even saying this is necessarily a bad thing.
It’s just ironic.
[note: I know this idea isn’t original to me. Many foreign policy conservatives have distanced themselves from Bush’s actions, labeling him and his team as neo-conservative, neo-Wilsonian, etc. – anything but “conservative.” They’ve obviously recognized the irony.]
Who in the Obama administration is in charge of gifts for foreign leaders and heads of state? DVD's for Gordon Brown when he gave Obama a relic from a British anti-slavery warship? (DVDs that would not play in Britain.) And now, for the Queen, a made-in-China ipod. Here is the story, linked by Gateway Pundit.
Appearance is part of the reality of leadership. Obama, with his gaffe-gifts, is not projecting an appearance of competence. See also all the tax-cheats that have been nominated; even more than when I wrote this post.
Appearance is part of the reality of leadership. Obama, with his gaffe-gifts, is not projecting an appearance of competence. See also all the tax-cheats that have been nominated; even more than when I wrote this post.
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
A few weeks ago I had my history class read Federalist No. 57 by Publius (James Madison, February 19, 1788). In this essay Madison defends the proposed Constitution on the point of the House of Representatives. Specifically, he asserts that the House cannot become tyrannical for the following reasons:
The House members will be
(1) elected by the voters; (2) chosen by fellow-citizens and so can be presumed to be good men; (3) grateful to the voters; (4) wanting to keep the favor of the voters; (5) subject to frequent election; (6) affected themselves by all laws passed; and (7) this system for a House of Representatives is similar to that already in effect in various states.
Since Senators now are elected directly by the voters, I think his argument also may be applied to the Senate.
It seems to me that Madison is assuming first, clear-eyed informed voters, and second, elections with a meaningful possibility of turning out incumbants. I fear that neither assumption remains valid.
First, putting aside the expansion of suffrage in the subsequent history of our nation, it seems to me self-evident that most voters are neither clear-eyed nor informed. Many voters cannot name their Federal Represenative or Senators, and most have only a hazy notion of the voting record of their Congressional delegation. And it is a sad fact that many voters cannot penetrate the cloud of manipulative rhetoric and images put forth at election-time.
It could be argued that the above facts are evidence only of the need for better education of citizens, not of a need to make a structural change through Constitutional Amendment. I concur that a better educated citizenry is needed. And I also concur with the Founders that Liberty is protected not only by the virtue of the citizenry, but also by structures designed to prevent tyranny. It seems to me that we need not only better education, but also a structural change to limit the terms served by members of Congress.
Second, elections today are rarely a serious contest if the incumbant seeks reelecton. Madison did nor forsee the growth in the power of incumbancy. A nation in which Representative Murtha wins reelection needs to reexamine its governing structure. Elections occur every two years for the House members, and every six years for members of the Senate, but elections have ceased to be fearful encounters with the will of the people for incumbants. The advantages of money, support from interest groups, name recognition, and seniority advantages in both chambers, mean that there usually is a small chance an incumbant will be turned out.
A permanant governing class is created by our present system. The Founders had a name for a permanent governing class--aristocrats. And aristocracy is what a republic was created to avoid.
Term limits. The structural answer to our current aristocracy.
I suggest 12 years for Representatives, and 24 for Senators, but I am open to suggestions.
The House members will be
(1) elected by the voters; (2) chosen by fellow-citizens and so can be presumed to be good men; (3) grateful to the voters; (4) wanting to keep the favor of the voters; (5) subject to frequent election; (6) affected themselves by all laws passed; and (7) this system for a House of Representatives is similar to that already in effect in various states.
Since Senators now are elected directly by the voters, I think his argument also may be applied to the Senate.
It seems to me that Madison is assuming first, clear-eyed informed voters, and second, elections with a meaningful possibility of turning out incumbants. I fear that neither assumption remains valid.
First, putting aside the expansion of suffrage in the subsequent history of our nation, it seems to me self-evident that most voters are neither clear-eyed nor informed. Many voters cannot name their Federal Represenative or Senators, and most have only a hazy notion of the voting record of their Congressional delegation. And it is a sad fact that many voters cannot penetrate the cloud of manipulative rhetoric and images put forth at election-time.
It could be argued that the above facts are evidence only of the need for better education of citizens, not of a need to make a structural change through Constitutional Amendment. I concur that a better educated citizenry is needed. And I also concur with the Founders that Liberty is protected not only by the virtue of the citizenry, but also by structures designed to prevent tyranny. It seems to me that we need not only better education, but also a structural change to limit the terms served by members of Congress.
Second, elections today are rarely a serious contest if the incumbant seeks reelecton. Madison did nor forsee the growth in the power of incumbancy. A nation in which Representative Murtha wins reelection needs to reexamine its governing structure. Elections occur every two years for the House members, and every six years for members of the Senate, but elections have ceased to be fearful encounters with the will of the people for incumbants. The advantages of money, support from interest groups, name recognition, and seniority advantages in both chambers, mean that there usually is a small chance an incumbant will be turned out.
A permanant governing class is created by our present system. The Founders had a name for a permanent governing class--aristocrats. And aristocracy is what a republic was created to avoid.
Term limits. The structural answer to our current aristocracy.
I suggest 12 years for Representatives, and 24 for Senators, but I am open to suggestions.
30/03: Jesus and Egalitarianism
I commend this essay by Louis Markos in Touchstone for reading by all.
In the essay he delineates and destroys the heresy at the core of Christian advocacy for same-sex practice: a liberal misunderstanding of Jesus as embodying absolute inclusivity.
Note that Christians who insist on the sanction and blessing of same-sex “marriage” are not saying: “Well, society’s changing, and if the Church doesn’t keep up with the change, she will be looked upon as old-fashioned and irrelevant to the concerns of today.” No, they are saying something far more radical and troubling: “ Because we are Christians, we should be in the forefront of those who are currently fighting for gay ‘marriage.’”
How could those who call themselves Christians take such a position? The answer is that many have accepted what I must call, without apology, the heresy of inclusivism. Though rarely stated so baldly, this heresy posits that at the core of Jesus’ life and teachings is a simple, non-negotiable message of absolute love, tolerance, and inclusivism that should determine every aspect of the faith. Any belief or practice that jeopardizes this message is to be rejected, even if it is stated clearly in the Bible, accepted by the historic Church, and believed by nearly all Christians since the founding of the faith. Any statements or doctrines that portray Jesus as exclusivist or intolerant, even if spoken by Jesus himself, must either be rejected or reinterpreted to fit in with his “true” message of inclusivism and tolerance.
In the essay he delineates and destroys the heresy at the core of Christian advocacy for same-sex practice: a liberal misunderstanding of Jesus as embodying absolute inclusivity.
Note that Christians who insist on the sanction and blessing of same-sex “marriage” are not saying: “Well, society’s changing, and if the Church doesn’t keep up with the change, she will be looked upon as old-fashioned and irrelevant to the concerns of today.” No, they are saying something far more radical and troubling: “ Because we are Christians, we should be in the forefront of those who are currently fighting for gay ‘marriage.’”
How could those who call themselves Christians take such a position? The answer is that many have accepted what I must call, without apology, the heresy of inclusivism. Though rarely stated so baldly, this heresy posits that at the core of Jesus’ life and teachings is a simple, non-negotiable message of absolute love, tolerance, and inclusivism that should determine every aspect of the faith. Any belief or practice that jeopardizes this message is to be rejected, even if it is stated clearly in the Bible, accepted by the historic Church, and believed by nearly all Christians since the founding of the faith. Any statements or doctrines that portray Jesus as exclusivist or intolerant, even if spoken by Jesus himself, must either be rejected or reinterpreted to fit in with his “true” message of inclusivism and tolerance.
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
James Tonkawich has an essay that makes the same point I did in an earlier post--that a welfare-state undermines the character of citizens.
He also makes another point, that welfare-states are bad for the health of churches. I don't agree completely with his reasoning, and may address the issue at greater length later. Historically, secularization in Europe preceeded both the decline in church attendance and the creation of the modern European welfare-state. The correlation between weak churches and strong governmets may not be direct, but both may be the product of secularization.
He also makes another point, that welfare-states are bad for the health of churches. I don't agree completely with his reasoning, and may address the issue at greater length later. Historically, secularization in Europe preceeded both the decline in church attendance and the creation of the modern European welfare-state. The correlation between weak churches and strong governmets may not be direct, but both may be the product of secularization.
29/03: Chinese Computer Spying
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
Story here. While the story stresses that the Chinese government has not been linked directly to this spying effort, the targets--the Dalai Lama's organization and also India-- are suggestive of government activity. Plus, China is not a free society and the Chinese government goes to great efforts to monitor the internet traffic of its citizens.
